Commissioner Of Central CGST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Jammu Pigments PVT LTD Kathua J And K

Held

The Court held that the application for condonation of delay should not be accepted. The reasoning was based on the principle of consistency and adherence to previous judicial pronouncements. The Court noted that a Division Bench of the same High Court had previously dismissed a similar appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) on grounds of limitation, despite similar grounds for condonation being urged. The Court found that the facts and circumstances of the present appeal were identical to the earlier case. Therefore, applying the ratio decidendi of the earlier judgment, the present appeal was also dismissed as being barred by limitation. No specific operative directions were issued beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against a final order dated March 6, 2018, passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1203 days, and a separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue concerning condonation of delay on similar grounds had been raised in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020. In that prior case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1203 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the grounds presented by the appellant. The appellant argued that the delay was attributable to administrative reasons and that the appeal raised important questions of law. They sought condonation of the delay to allow the appeal to be heard on its merits. The revenue, in this instance, was the appellant. The respondent was M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. The court's decision was primarily based on the precedent set in a similar case.